Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2018, 03:32 PM   #1
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default Conclusive Evidence 9/11 Planes Not Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE

https://911planeshoax.com
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 04:34 PM   #2
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

Another really excellent video from Richard Hall . He does so much great work in many areas ...

This video has filled in a few gaps in my understanding . .so what do we have???

No planes hit the towers ... a military aircraft at higher altitude was projecting an image of the plane in the sky , which those on the ground would have seen ... but no sound , or perhaps very reduced sound from speakers placed on top of skyscraper roofs...

At the moment the holographic image of the plane hit the building preplaced charges were detonated , so the fireball was real...

Later thermate , preplaced on the colombs was detonated causing the collapse , and the moment the collapse started the disintegration beam , probably on a satellite , was fired, causing the building to dustify as it fell.

As the video emphasizes , they have secret tech light years ahead of what we know.
Likes: (4)
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 04:40 PM   #3
ink
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 603
Likes: 280 (197 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
... but no sound , or perhaps very reduced sound from speakers placed on top of skyscraper roofs...
Good post....but really Oz?

You do not consider that the tech available would also include sound??

Likes: (1)
ink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 04:40 PM   #4
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Was no holographic projections, only cack quality special effects inserted into live TV.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 05:02 PM   #5
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

What a total load of bollocks from a first class shill.
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 05:49 PM   #6
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
What a total load of bollocks from a first class shill.


da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 06:07 PM   #7
tinfoil hat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 1,235 (714 Posts)
Default

I wouldn't say conclusive, but I do think the first part about the plane hitting the building and how fast it can go at that altitude was interesting.
I will have to look into that some more.
Likes: (1)
tinfoil hat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 06:12 PM   #8
ink
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 603
Likes: 280 (197 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
I wouldn't say conclusive, but I do think the first part about the plane hitting the building and how fast it can go at that altitude was interesting.
I will have to look into that some more.
Seeing as you are here! I will post to you (as I cannot PM you) .... I created a thread regarding our potential discussion .... and it was deleted by the mods?

So sorry no chat!

Such is within a limited consideration of view points!
Likes: (1)
ink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 06:52 PM   #9
tinfoil hat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 1,235 (714 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ink View Post
Seeing as you are here! I will post to you (as I cannot PM you) .... I created a thread regarding our potential discussion .... and it was deleted by the mods?

So sorry no chat!

Such is within a limited consideration of view points!
Sorry Ink, I went out after my last post yesterday, I didn't know you had tried to start a thread.
Never mind.
Likes: (1)
tinfoil hat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 07:40 PM   #10
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,909
Likes: 425 (247 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
Was no holographic projections, only cack quality special effects inserted into live TV.
Still doesn't answer why so many new yorkers saw planes in the sky.

Richards final analysis was OK but I think he's missing a few valuable points and then running with them to benefit his final analysis

Firstly we know large Boeing aircraft can't fly at max speed in high density air.

That doesn't mean or equate to no planes. The what it means is the official data & the os is wrong.

Secondly, showing trucks driving into a concrete block at 50mph or planes breaking up at low speeds IS NOT the same as something moving at 300mph+ speeds hitting concrete & steel.

You have to take into account the excessive speed - especially if you're arguing that 'the physics don't work' - you can't make that argument if the physics you're using don't match the model you're applying them to.

Thirdly, arguing that the plane didn't decelerate, you ha e to take into account the forward motion applied by speed - say 300+mph and that ALL of the plane has a forward propulsion of 300+mph, that doesn't stop because a building gets in the way like it stops a truck doing 50mph.

It needs scaling up.

I can cut concrete and steel with an angle grinder. However if I press the grinding blade onto the concrete when the grinder isn't switched on I can buckle the blade - switch it on tho, when the relatively thin blade is moving at 600rpm it can cut through the steel.

Just because a truck buckles or a plane falls apart at low speed doesn't mean that at high speed it will behave in the same way.

And showing a truck & a plane behaving in a certain way
at X speed prove no planes.

When you scale the physics of X up with multiples of speed, momentum & forward propulsion then the physics change exponentially.

Without applying that exponential maths Richard is just presenting dissinfo - 50% truth mixed with 50% fabrication.

Last edited by merlincove; 11-08-2018 at 07:57 PM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:23 PM   #11
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
Still doesn't answer why so many new yorkers saw planes in the sky.

Richards final analysis was OK but I think he's missing a few valuable points and then running with them to benefit his final analysis

Firstly we know large Boeing aircraft can't fly at max speed in high density air.

That doesn't mean or equate to no planes. The what it means is the official data & the os is wrong.

Secondly, showing trucks driving into a concrete block at 50mph or planes breaking up at low speeds IS NOT the same as something moving at 300mph+ speeds hitting concrete & steel.

You have to take into account the excessive speed - especially if you're arguing that 'the physics don't work' - you can't make that argument if the physics you're using don't match the model you're applying them to.

Thirdly, arguing that the plane didn't decelerate, you ha e to take into account the forward motion applied by speed - say 300+mph and that ALL of the plane has a forward propulsion of 300+mph, that doesn't stop because a building gets in the way like it stops a truck doing 50mph.

It needs scaling up.

I can cut concrete and steel with an angle grinder. However if I press the grinding blade onto the concrete when the grinder isn't switched on I can buckle the blade - switch it on tho, when the relatively thin blade is moving at 600rpm it can cut through the steel.

Just because a truck buckles or a plane falls apart at low speed doesn't mean that at high speed it will behave in the same way.

And showing a truck & a plane behaving in a certain way
at X speed prove no planes.

When you scale the physics of X up with multiples of speed, momentum & forward propulsion then the physics change exponentially.

Without applying that exponential maths Richard is just presenting dissinfo - 50% truth mixed with 50% fabrication.
As soon as it impacted - the shockwave should have basically made it explode, remember the thing in physics about equal and opposite forces?

The force doesn't just act one way, both the plane and the building will exert forces equal and opposite to each other - not just the plane exerting a force on the building.

Even if you don't agree with this, then the image of the building still looking normal straight after the rear of the plane wing has supposedly penetrated right the way through it is the most damning evidence of all.

You really think a wing full of fuel would not even explode on that kind of impact, or did all of the fuel get conveniently used up just at the right moment?

Look at the right wing half way in the building, the impact force would have exploded all the fuel, its impossible for it to wait until its gone all the way through.


Last edited by da2255; 11-08-2018 at 08:48 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:32 PM   #12
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,407
Likes: 1,436 (935 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255
Was no holographic projections, only cack quality special effects inserted into live TV.
Had to be projections cause I saw a PRIVATE NEWS COMPANY filiming near the towers when the first one hit... (You could clearly see a charge being set off right as the image hit the bulding)

It wasnt real............
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 02:21 AM   #13
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

I originally thought the planes were special effects added later by tv .... but this video has convinced me of holograms projected from the high flying military craft caught on film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
Firstly we know large Boeing aircraft can't fly at max speed in high density air. .
So the question arises why did the controllers have this hologram plane flying at such high speed, many pilots have said this is impossible!!

They could have had it going slower ...couldn't they ???

Well NO ! they couldn't ... the image was projected from a high flying craft which had to be flying fast in the thinner atmosphere high up ...the hologram had to travel at the same speed as this high flying plane that was projecting the image ...

Another question is why dustify the towers????

Without dustification the thermate placed on the steel columns on multiple floors would have caused the towers to collapse .... but (we are told by demolition experts) there would be a mountain of steel and concrete left at ground zero tens of stories high!!! ...

Instead they dustified perhaps 95% of the building as it fell , it rose up in the enormouse cloud released into the atmosphere and also fell locally making a carpet of dust over many square miles...

This had to be to destroy the evidence .... What evidence???

When thermate charges are used to demolish a steel building they are placed on the columns at an angle , so when melted the upper part will slide over the lower part and collapse more easily . This leaves a very obvious piece of evidence ....



Without dustification there would be hundreds of these tell tale columbs all over ground zero staying there for many weeks ...people in overlooking buildings could see and take pictures , and the clean up crew and firemen are just average guys , the word would have leaked out big time...

With dustification there are just a few of these cut columns left , they could be covered that up and quickly removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ink View Post
Good post....but really Oz?
You do not consider that the tech available would also include sound??
Well .... focused light can travel many miles through air so no problem with the hologram .

Sound is a different mater ... it has to be generated locally , is soon dispersed , I don't think they have the tech for projecting sound over great distances , and in the way required , for this event ...

But also we have the testimony of many people in the video , there was no sound , or very low level.

Last edited by oz93666; 12-08-2018 at 03:24 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 10:07 AM   #14
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

It takes around 140 joules to penetrate through the strongest steel that can be wrought. As an average, we could say that it is around 100 joules per square meter.

To put this into perspective, an object like a baseball thrown requires 116 joules to travel at 90mph. In motion, that energy from the pitcher is transfered to the ball. With air resistance and gravity, then energy then transfers to the surrounding environment and slows down. If the ball connects with the swing of a bat, then the joules of energy transfered back must be greater in order to hit the ball away in the opposite direction.

The WTC wasn't made from solid steel walls, it was made from a combination of hollow steel supports and metal girders for the floors encased in concrete. We can also include the aluminium casing found on the outside of the building used to protect the main supports from rust corrosion.

A plane the size of the ones used on 9/11 travelling at around 590mph (which I originally thought was 400mph) is going to have enormous genetic energy, including the wing tips. Also, many assume this plane was made of aluminium. It may have been made from military grade materials even ones used on space shuttles that use aluminium alloys and titanium alloys. Certainly the forces space shuttles deal with and speeds on re-entry, those materials will be exceptional strong.

If we observe the sloping angle of the second plane which crashed into the south tower, you can also add on gravitational energy.

So what you seeing happening when the planes go in is the real thing.

Certainly if RD Hall and Dr Judy Wood think that a direct energy weapon was used, then why wouldn't it have been used to weaken the steel in the isolated area where the planes went in? They are exceptionally selective to where they apply their "empirical" evidence.

"Empiricial" being observational, not that being contrasted to the laws of physics and real data.

In a nutshell, their only objections are against the use of "Nanothermite" and that the planes weren't real. Really, if you take away their over speculation of the use of a direct energy weapon, the "dustification" is merely the end product of the types of nanothermite that were used. One of those products is quoted to be a "gas" or in other words, "vapourisation".

Last edited by MKUltrad; 12-08-2018 at 10:25 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 10:19 AM   #15
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
It takes around 140 joules to penetrate through the strongest steel that can be wrought. As an average, we could say that it is around 100 joules per square meter.

To put this into perspective, an object like a baseball thrown requires 116 joules to travel at 90mph. In motion, that energy from the pitcher is transfered to the ball. With air resistance and gravity, then energy then transfers to the surrounding environment and slows down. If the ball connects with the swing of a bat, then the joules of energy transfered back must be greater in order to hit the ball away in the opposite direction.

The WTC wasn't made from solid steel walls, it was made from a combination of hollow steel supports and metal girders for the floors encased in concrete. We can also include the aluminium casing found on the outside of the building used to protect the main supports from rust corrosion.

A plane the size of the ones used on 9/11 travelling at around 590mph (which I originally thought was 400mph) is going to have enormous genetic energy, including the wing tips. Also, many assume this plane was made of aluminium. It may have been made from military grade materials. If we observe the sloping angle of the second plane which crashed into the south tower, you can also add on gravitational energy.

So what you seeing happening when the planes go in is the real thing.

Certainly if RD Hall and Dr Judy Wood think that a direct energy weapon was used, then why wouldn't it have been used to weaken the steel in the isolated area where the planes went in? They are exceptionally selective with their "empirical" evidence.

"Empiricial" being observational, not that being contrasted to the laws of physics and real data.
This enormous kinetic energy you speak of is real and this generates an impact force.

Imagine if you punch a wall, most people think that your fist or arm is the only thing applying a force because its the thing thats moving and the wall is not.

However this is not true, the wall will also apply an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE force on your fist.

If it wasn't the case you could punch a wall all day long and have a perfectly functional hand by the end of it.

So basically its just absurd that I could post an image like the one in my post above and there not even be bits of the plane falling off or even any holes in the building between the wing and the fuselage.

Last edited by da2255; 12-08-2018 at 10:22 AM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 10:31 AM   #16
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,957 (2,161 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
It takes around 140 joules to penetrate through the strongest steel that can be wrought. As an average, we could say that it is around 100 joules per square meter.

To put this into perspective, an object like a baseball thrown requires 116 joules to travel at 90mph.......

... if RD Hall and Dr Judy Wood think that a direct energy weapon was used, then why wouldn't it have been used to weaken the steel in the isolated area where the planes went in? They are exceptionally selective to where they apply their "empirical" evidence
So many errors in this whole post !!!

The first line ...It takes around 140 joules to penetrate through the strongest steel that can be wrought.

This is a meaningless statement and incorrect ...where did you get it from??

You must specify the thickness of the steel , the area over which the impact is concentrated , and many other factors ...

I could go on through your whole post , but why bother .....

It makes me laugh (and cry) when people with no technical understanding dismiss judy wood with the wave of a hand .."Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering"

Why wouldn't the directed energy weapon be used as you said ??? how do you know it can be that pinpoint accurate??? And why would they want to do that anyway???

Last edited by oz93666; 12-08-2018 at 10:36 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 10:33 AM   #17
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
This enormous kinetic energy you speak of is real and this generates an impact force.

Imagine if you punch a wall, most people think that your fist or arm is the only thing applying a force because its the thing thats moving and the wall is not.

However this is not true, the wall will also apply an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE force on your fist.

If it wasn't the case you could punch a wall all day long and have a perfectly functional hand by the end of it.

So basically its just absurd that I could post an image like the one in my post above and there not even be bits of the plane falling off or even any holes in the building between the wing and the fuselage.
You want to know why bits falling off from a plane crash at 590mph with directional force can't be observed split seconds after it happened? How would these "bits" have time to fall? Bare in mind, fractions of a second later the plane blew up in inside.

What you are describing is called "Resistance" which is in fact the fundamental crux of the the argument as to why the towers could only have fallen the way they did because of a controlled demolition.

In contrast, the B-25 that plowed into the Empire State building in the 1940's was probably only travelling around 150-175mph. Therefore, it did not have enough kinetic energy to punch through the building like the planes on 9/11 did. Yet the B-25 was made of aluminium construction and the front end had more glass windows than a solid protective shell.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 12-08-2018 at 10:42 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 10:53 AM   #18
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
So many errors in this whole post !!!

The first line ...It takes around 140 joules to penetrate through the strongest steel that can be wrought.

This is a meaningless statement and incorrect ...where did you get it from??

You must specify the thickness of the steel , the area over which the impact is concentrated , and many other factors ...

I could go on through your whole post , but why bother .....

It makes me laugh (and cry) when people with no technical understanding dismiss judy wood with the wave of a hand .."Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering"

Why wouldn't the directed energy weapon be used as you said ??? how do you know it can be that pinpoint accurate??? And why would they want to do that anyway???
It's far from meaningless. In fact there is more sensible science in my last post than the entirity of any DJW or RDH video. Thats because none of them mention any proper science at all. Certainly if you are going to disprove "Thermite", nothing they presented convinced me that it could be ruled out let alone Nanothermite.

As I've pointed out, the thickness of the steel or "potential" energy was not that of a dense wall of steel or concrete. The columns were hollow. So, as another user here as already pointed out and as have I in the past, comparing two fullsize aircraft travelling at 590mph into a skyscaper to a truck driving into a concrete wall at around 50-60mph is no contest. In fact its laughable, especially when that concrete wall budges when it the truck goes in. The fact the wall moved in the first place is huge indication of what kinetic energy can do.

It makes me laugh when people like yourself become enchanted by some some internet gobshites who have a few university credentials, but can't comprehend what "empirical" evidence means.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 12-08-2018 at 11:12 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 12:16 PM   #19
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
It's far from meaningless. In fact there is more sensible science in my last post than the entirity of any DJW or RDH video. Thats because none of them mention any proper science at all. Certainly if you are going to disprove "Thermite", nothing they presented convinced me that it could be ruled out let alone Nanothermite.

As I've pointed out, the thickness of the steel or "potential" energy was not that of a dense wall of steel or concrete. The columns were hollow. So, as another user here as already pointed out and as have I in the past, comparing two fullsize aircraft travelling at 590mph into a skyscaper to a truck driving into a concrete wall at around 50-60mph is no contest. In fact its laughable, especially when that concrete wall budges when it the truck goes in. The fact the wall moved in the first place is huge indication of what kinetic energy can do.

It makes me laugh when people like yourself become enchanted by some some internet gobshites who have a few university credentials, but can't comprehend what "empirical" evidence means.
So in the picture above, can you explain to me why theres no hole in the building between the left engine and the fuselage after the wing has supposedly penetrated right through?

If you believe thats even possible then honestly, I've got a magic bean to sell you.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2018, 01:10 PM   #20
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 513
Likes: 148 (109 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
So in the picture above, can you explain to me why theres no hole in the building between the left engine and the fuselage after the wing has supposedly penetrated right through?

If you believe thats even possible then honestly, I've got a magic bean to sell you.
I don't waste time explaining images that have some sort of bias text attached to them and the chances that they have been altered to fit the opinion. I've had this conversation before, on exactly the same picture.

There is plenty of close up video footage of the crash areas of the building where steel supports can be observered to be cut and bent inwards. Explosions from an internal source won't do that. The force would have to come from the outside.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.